3 ms·

Abstract political and ethical concepts do not work in actual competitive biological reality. Even in very religious societies (Hindu, Jews, Muslims) all such

Abstract political and ethical concepts do not work in actual competitive biological reality. Even in very religious societies (Hindu, Jews, Muslims) all such abstract constructions are nothing but virtue signalling. Reality is what is going on in Mariupol right now.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rosetremiere 5y ago
> Reality is what is going on in Mariupol right now. I seem to often hear such kinds of claims repeated: Only hardship and poverty is real, and the mundane life of people living "sheltered" lives in western countries is somehow just a bubble, artificial. Why would that be the case?
- katmannthree 5y ago
  I think their argument is less that "hardship and poverty are real, everything else is fake" and more that for all the complexities of modern western society we're all still very much dependent on resources delivered just-in-time, and that as our society decays it will rapidly (and unexpectedly, for some) revert back to "primitive" behaviors like killing in the name of food today and security tomorrow. The things that are happening in Mariupol right now can, and in all likelihood WILL eventually happen here too. We have the same fundamental biological needs as them, the same ruleset governing social dynamics, and very similar cultures (as far as those things go). The fake are governed by the same set of rules that real lives are, but we don't see them that way because just like every other superpower our internal propaganda is strong and there's probably negative utility in commoners internalizing that. It's not so much that our sheltered lives are fake, it's that they're opaque, and built directly on top of what the OP considers to be real. They're built on top of hardship and poverty, of slavery and unimaginable suffering, and yet we look the other way because wow that's a great deal on Nikes and oh look a $200 4k TV, you know you deserve one of those you've lived with 1080p for long enough. How many of the few who acknowledge and condemn the world of suffering that modern Western society is built upon actually live the austere lives that would be needed to abolish it? Our sheltered lives are built on hardship and poverty too, the fundamental difference is that it is someone else's hardship and poverty a world away.
  - rosetremiere 5y ago
    Good points, thanks! In your opinion, what kind of life would be "austere enough" to claim (faithfully) that it does not benefit from other people's hardships? As in, what kind of life should you live to be able to say that you're not "rich and healthy because someone somewhere is poor and sick"? (I'm having trouble stating that question clearly, but hopefully the point gets across) I's a bit of a hard question in my opinion, because so much of our economy is interlinked with the world and even with history… Probably, some richness of the west is a legacy of colonial times, during which a transfer of richness occurred, and the west would still be indebted in that sense?
    - katmannthree 4y ago
      > I's a bit of a hard question in my opinion, because so much of our economy is interlinked with the world and even with history… Probably, some richness of the west is a legacy of colonial times, during which a transfer of richness occurred, and the west would still be indebted in that sense? Exactly this. Stealing from someone for generations and then going “okay fine here’s your freedom look how virtuous we are for doing this” conveniently right when the costs of extracting those resources rise to the point unviability isn’t remotely fair. Within the bounds of the systems we’re operating in though, the most realistic and least unethical approach is probably to find ways to work with them to mutual enrichment. The world isn’t fair, and IMO the least harmful long term option probably isn’t to just send resources back to former colonies unless your goal is to enrich and entrench the extant power structures there (which ironically aren’t necessarily more likely to operate more ethically than you). In reflection on this response… damnit, it seems I’m a neoliberal. Addressing the rest of your message, I really don’t think there is a life austere enough within the bounds of continued participation in society (see the loosely-connected phrase ”there is no ethical consumption under capitalism“). And of course, I also really don’t see an alternative which reduces exploitation to zero given empirical observations of human behavioral dynamics. The best you can do (for some definitions of the words best and you) is to just take a utilitarian harm-minimization approach: don’t buy things from companies you know are unethical, don’t work for companies that you know are unethical, focus your efforts on balancing your needs (not wants, actual needs) with the actions most likely to lead to your desired outcome for the world. It won’t make a marginal quantifiable difference, but it does feel better than just accepting the world for what it is.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rosetremiere 5y ago

> Reality is what is going on in Mariupol right now. I seem to often hear such kinds of claims repeated: Only hardship and poverty is real, and the mundane life of people living "sheltered" lives in western countries is somehow just a bubble, artificial. Why would that be the case?

katmannthree 5y ago
I think their argument is less that "hardship and poverty are real, everything else is fake" and more that for all the complexities of modern western society we're all still very much dependent on resources delivered just-in-time, and that as our society decays it will rapidly (and unexpectedly, for some) revert back to "primitive" behaviors like killing in the name of food today and security tomorrow. The things that are happening in Mariupol right now can, and in all likelihood WILL eventually happen here too. We have the same fundamental biological needs as them, the same ruleset governing social dynamics, and very similar cultures (as far as those things go). The fake are governed by the same set of rules that real lives are, but we don't see them that way because just like every other superpower our internal propaganda is strong and there's probably negative utility in commoners internalizing that. It's not so much that our sheltered lives are fake, it's that they're opaque, and built directly on top of what the OP considers to be real. They're built on top of hardship and poverty, of slavery and unimaginable suffering, and yet we look the other way because wow that's a great deal on Nikes and oh look a $200 4k TV, you know you deserve one of those you've lived with 1080p for long enough. How many of the few who acknowledge and condemn the world of suffering that modern Western society is built upon actually live the austere lives that would be needed to abolish it? Our sheltered lives are built on hardship and poverty too, the fundamental difference is that it is someone else's hardship and poverty a world away.
- rosetremiere 5y ago
  Good points, thanks! In your opinion, what kind of life would be "austere enough" to claim (faithfully) that it does not benefit from other people's hardships? As in, what kind of life should you live to be able to say that you're not "rich and healthy because someone somewhere is poor and sick"? (I'm having trouble stating that question clearly, but hopefully the point gets across) I's a bit of a hard question in my opinion, because so much of our economy is interlinked with the world and even with history… Probably, some richness of the west is a legacy of colonial times, during which a transfer of richness occurred, and the west would still be indebted in that sense?
  - katmannthree 4y ago
    > I's a bit of a hard question in my opinion, because so much of our economy is interlinked with the world and even with history… Probably, some richness of the west is a legacy of colonial times, during which a transfer of richness occurred, and the west would still be indebted in that sense? Exactly this. Stealing from someone for generations and then going “okay fine here’s your freedom look how virtuous we are for doing this” conveniently right when the costs of extracting those resources rise to the point unviability isn’t remotely fair. Within the bounds of the systems we’re operating in though, the most realistic and least unethical approach is probably to find ways to work with them to mutual enrichment. The world isn’t fair, and IMO the least harmful long term option probably isn’t to just send resources back to former colonies unless your goal is to enrich and entrench the extant power structures there (which ironically aren’t necessarily more likely to operate more ethically than you). In reflection on this response… damnit, it seems I’m a neoliberal. Addressing the rest of your message, I really don’t think there is a life austere enough within the bounds of continued participation in society (see the loosely-connected phrase ”there is no ethical consumption under capitalism“). And of course, I also really don’t see an alternative which reduces exploitation to zero given empirical observations of human behavioral dynamics. The best you can do (for some definitions of the words best and you) is to just take a utilitarian harm-minimization approach: don’t buy things from companies you know are unethical, don’t work for companies that you know are unethical, focus your efforts on balancing your needs (not wants, actual needs) with the actions most likely to lead to your desired outcome for the world. It won’t make a marginal quantifiable difference, but it does feel better than just accepting the world for what it is.